If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

'Sweeping changes' to Academy and Father/Son bidding system

Damian Barrett on the Footy Show reporting changes that are almost certain with regards to the Academy and Father/Son bidding systems.

In brief, he is saying an independent panel will judge the worth of a potential academy or f/s player. If they deem this player is a top 5 talent and for example Sydney have pick 18, then we would have to give up our first AND second round pick for this player.

These changes are said to be happening this year. Personally I think this is a complete disgrace. Completely sick of Eddie getting his way. They didn't mention how it would work with Sydney having two fall into this category in next years draft. I guess we'd have to give up our first 4 picks?

I do not necessarily object to future changes to the Academy bidding system (and would support the total abolition of the F/S system). However, as I have earlier expressed in more detail in the Academy thread, my view is that if the AFL changes the draft pick rules for Academy players with immediate or near-future application, then that should be challenged as a retrospective change, not least by QBE as the corporate sponsor of the Swans Academy. The Swans have run the Academy, and QBE and individual contributors have made majority funding to it, for 5 years under a set of rules which included an agreed bidding system for any Academy players good enough to be considered for the draft. It is a breach of an implicit contract to change those rules just as players such as Heeney and Mills graduate from the Academy. Any change should only apply to boys who go into the Academy from 2015 onwards.

If that is the case then it will hurt Collingwood just as much as us. Darcy Moore F/S Collingwood is rated higher than Heeney. I say to Eddie:

"Be careful what you wish for, you may get it".

Collingwood will end up with around pick 8, so it will be deemed fair value. The rule will only apply to the Swans and can change from year to year dependent upon the respective ladder positions of the Swans and Collingwood. It's Eddie's new push for flexible equalisation.

Originally Posted by Meg

I do not necessarily object to future changes to the Academy bidding system (and would support the total abolition of the F/S system). However, as I have earlier expressed in more detail in the Academy thread, my view is that if the AFL changes the draft pick rules for Academy players with immediate or near-future application, then that should be challenged as a retrospective change, not least by QBE as the corporate sponsor of the Swans Academy. The Swans have run the Academy, and QBE and individual contributors have made majority funding to it, for 5 years under a set of rules which included an agreed bidding system for any Academy players good enough to be considered for the draft. It is a breach of an implicit contract to change those rules just as players such as Heeney and Mills graduate from the Academy. Any change should only apply to boys who go into the Academy from 2015 onwards.

Agree 100%. If there's any of this funny business directed specifically against the Swans, QBE and the Swans should drop the Academy and sue the AFL for damages. If Essendon can drag the AFL through the courts, the so can we. I hope Barrett is just mouthing Eddie's wish list like he usually does.

Agree 100%. If there's any of this funny business directed specifically against the Swans, QBE and the Swans should drop the Academy and sue the AFL for damages. If Essendon can drag the AFL through the courts, the so can we. I hope Barrett is just mouthing Eddie's wish list like he usually does.

My thoughts exactly. You simply cant do this in business or there will be litigation.

I do not necessarily object to future changes to the Academy bidding system (and would support the total abolition of the F/S system). However, as I have earlier expressed in more detail in the Academy thread, my view is that if the AFL changes the draft pick rules for Academy players with immediate or near-future application, then that should be challenged as a retrospective change, not least by QBE as the corporate sponsor of the Swans Academy. The Swans have run the Academy, and QBE and individual contributors have made majority funding to it, for 5 years under a set of rules which included an agreed bidding system for any Academy players good enough to be considered for the draft. It is a breach of an implicit contract to change those rules just as players such as Heeney and Mills graduate from the Academy. Any change should only apply to boys who go into the Academy from 2015 onwards.

Yep, agree.

Moving the goal posts so significantly would leave the AFL exposed to compensation or litigation by QBE.

5 years of money and work cannot be ignored by the AFL, they would know this.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

Moving the goal posts so significantly would leave the AFL exposed to compensation or litigation by QBE.

5 years of money and work cannot be ignored by the AFL, they would know this.

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

I don?t think QBEs contribution to the Academy would have warranted an expensive Court case if the rules were changed. If they put in $2.5 mill over 5 years then why would you spend over 1 million dollars on a Court Case when there are slight modifications to the drafting rules? We are not talking about a Telstra / NBN battle worth over $200 million in payments

My Son does a sports program called ?Jungle Sports? where QBE have their name on the uniforms and signs. This is a grass roots branding initiative for QBE just like the Swans Academy.

The AFL will argue that QBE have achieved their brand recognition objectives in the Swans Academy regardless of modifications to the drafting rules.

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

I don?t think QBEs contribution to the Academy would have warranted an expensive Court case if the rules were changed. If they put in $2.5 mill over 5 years then why would you spend over 1 million dollars on a Court Case when there are slight modifications to the drafting rules? We are not talking about a Telstra / NBN battle worth over $200 million in payments

My Son does a sports program called ?Jungle Sports? where QBE have their name on the uniforms and signs. This is a grass roots branding initiative for QBE just like the Swans Academy.

The AFL will argue that QBE have achieved their brand recognition objectives in the Swans Academy regardless of modifications to the drafting rules.

I'd like to see the initial negotiation with the AFL run something like this:

QBE - We sponsor the Academy as Principal Sponsors of the Sydney Swans. The day the new rules are announced is the day we withdraw that sponsorship as it's no longer a viable program.

Swans - Without QBE sponsorship of the Academy we can't continue so we will close the Academy on that day, too. And we've spoken to Brisbane and they will be doing the same. We're expecting some media interest and will have our Chair on hand - and some of the Academy players.